Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Gwen Ifill was at her worst IMO...I think the Republican pressure based on her soon-to-be released book featuring Barack Obama got to her...Ive seen her do plenty of debates and interviews...She asked so many leading, wiggle-room having, soopa-explanatory questions (Many times giving an exit to the question)...These are 2 candidates running for Vice-Pres, do they really need every question spelled out in SOOOOPA detail with NO FOLLOWUPS...Me and about 4 people watched this thing and we were all screaming at the TV for Ifill to actually moderate this debate...Both candidates suffered because of this...She never encouraged back-and-forth comments really, and she didn't even ask any questions about ANYTHING Palin had screwed up on in the Katie Couric interviews...Not to chide her, but to give her a chance to clear the record...Moderators ALWAYS ask questions on big happenings surrounding the candidates prior to the actual debate...Gwen was just disappointing to me...

Anyways, at the end of the day people thought Palin's head would fall off of the podium and it didn't so I don't think this debate changes much...

I really liked the format of this debate. It fostered civility, which was refreshing to see.

I really liked the format of this debate. It fostered civility, which was refreshing to see.

The entire point of a debate is to make a point, not to make complete circles around the subject matter. I though I could see civility being important, but to this extent, it has become a nuisance to deal with, much like telling the"truth". They might as well talk in a coffee shop then, if they lower the point of a debate. I rather have cut throat talkers relay well backed info and truly accepting and countering the message.

So civility is somehow compromised buy asking substantive follow-ups that don't let any candidate get away with totally evasive question answering? Sheeeesh, this country deserves what we get...

What can you do about it? If they change the format, it will create more discussions, and the public don't enjoy those discussions. However, without those discussions, they cannot get the real picture, and cannot identify the truth. Still they prefer superficial information over a substantial one, since they do and want to trust the candidate's promises and words. Fortunately, the politics hasn't entered that path substantially yet, so they can do that to some extent.

Might as well get a extremely sexy playboy model to say the same exact speech of Sarah Palin.

Hillary is much better in terms of using her words and actually being tough.

As she as good of a person as she says, it can be a mere"Mask' of her true side. A ordinary republican can do the exact same thing, with the result. She may have looks, but looks can only get you so far especially in here case. Can you tell me in what way would she be special, compared to a random draw to other Congreesman or Senators?

uh she has a 97 % approval rating in her state?

Well she does have an advantage! I'll give you that with where she is, but still nobody in washington has seen those type of numbers in how many years? if ever?

Uh, no she doesn't...Her approval after the Katie Couric interviews dipped under 80%, she's now behind atleast 2 governors...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

What can you do about it? If they change the format, it will create more discussions, and the public don't enjoy those discussions. However, without those discussions, they cannot get the real picture, and cannot identify the truth. Still they prefer superficial information over a substantial one, since they do and want to trust the candidate's promises and words. Fortunately, the politics hasn't entered that path substantially yet, so they can do that to some extent.

You seem to think I'm asking for the world...I'm just asking for a follow-up question...If that's too much to ask for we deserve what we get...

What can you do about it? If they change the format, it will create more discussions, and the public don't enjoy those discussions. However, without those discussions, they cannot get the real picture, and cannot identify the truth. Still they prefer superficial information over a substantial one, since they do and want to trust the candidate's promises and words. Fortunately, the politics hasn't entered that path substantially yet, so they can do that to some extent.

Trying to evade discussion is still pointless, words are merely words. They are nothing without action as well as "promises". That is still no way to judge them, you have better luck with scraps of information that are true.

You're missing the pont, people who would support her in a snowstorm took a second look after her incredible blunders following the Katie Couric interviews...It's almost like they were saying "Woah, we didn't know she was that ________" If your running at 80% before you get the Vice-Pres gig shouldn't you be polling atleast even if not higher in a state with an extremely small population that supported you so vigorously before McCain picked you? I honestly think many were embarrassed with her knowledge in those interviews...

Trying to evade discussion is still pointless, words are merely words. They are nothing without action as well as "promises". That is still no way to judge them, you have better luck with scraps of information that are true.

Still, that is the only thing most will get. And, they have to make their decisions mainly based on that (and base on the impression they will get). And, I believe, many will do just like that. Of course, here, I am ignoring the group that will vote for one candidate regardless of the credibility-trust-capability kind of backing behind them (+/-racism, +/-sexism, +/-religion, +/- partisanship).

Well... I thought the evening was a general fail on the part of Palin, Biden, and Ifil.

Ifil: No followup questions and no "hey wait a minute you didn't answer my question." Both candidates got away with going straight to their "flashcard answers" ....

Palin: Everytime she claimed McCain meant something different about "fundamentals of the economy" than what the phrase actually means -- I wanted to slap her. Otherwise, 90% of her talk was what I expected her to do: platitudes, mom, apple pie, and a bit of populism (get the greedy lenders.... um, banking scandals are not exactly off the rap sheet for Republicans?). Some points for complete sentences for a change.

Biden: Missed many opportunities he was so busy going for his own "flashcard answers". Far too sedate .... Palin spent more of the debate sounding passionate even when she wasn't actually saying anything..

You're missing the pont, people who would support her in a snowstorm took a second look after her incredible blunders following the Katie Couric interviews...It's almost like they were saying "Woah, we didn't know she was that ________" If your running at 80% before you get the Vice-Pres gig shouldn't you be polling atleast even if not higher in a state with an extremely small population that supported you so vigorously before McCain picked you? I honestly think many were embarrassed with her knowledge in those interviews...

That's only when (Obama-leaning) journalists ambushed her with "gotcha" questions.

Tonight Palin survived. Her credibility is now back to levels of post GOP convention (late August/early September).

Well... I thought the evening was a general fail on the part of Palin, Biden, and Ifil.

Ifil: No followup questions and no "hey wait a minute you didn't answer my question." Both candidates got away with going straight to their "flashcard answers" ....

Palin: Everytime she claimed McCain meant something different about "fundamentals of the economy" than what the phrase actually means -- I wanted to slap her. Otherwise, 90% of her talk was what I expected her to do: platitudes, mom, apple pie, and a bit of populism (get the greedy lenders.... um, banking scandals are not exactly off the rap sheet for Republicans?). Some points for complete sentences for a change.

Biden: Missed many opportunities he was so busy going for his own "flashcard answers". Far too sedate .... Palin spent more of the debate sounding passionate even when she wasn't actually saying anything..

That's only when (Obama-leaning) journalists ambushed her with "gotcha" questions.

Tonight Palin survived. Her credibility is now back to levels of post GOP convention (late August/early September).

What "gotcha" questions? I'd like a list of "gotcha" questions the press has asked Palin that they wouldn't normally ask of a candidate.

I agree that she survived and salvaged some of her national political career. I don't think her credibility is back the GOP convention levels though. It'll take a few years for that to happen. I wouldn't be shocked if she plays a big role in 2012 elections, assuming Obama wins this year.

Biden: Not bad. He kept himself in check....maybe even too much. But very solid.

Palin: Holy crap the sentences made sense! Guess all that "coaching" paid off. Unfortunately she harped on every possible tactic you could think of. Vexx lined up the list nicely.

Ifil: Sigh. Politics hurt this. I couldn't really call this a debate so much as a hour and a half interview.

On the other hand, vice presidents are usually an afterthought. They don't do much that is immediately apparent to the public (even so, people *should* care). But the overall performances in this debate won't be enough to significantly change the course of this election, in my opinion.

Well... I thought the evening was a general fail on the part of Palin, Biden, and Ifil.

Ifil: No followup questions and no "hey wait a minute you didn't answer my question." Both candidates got away with going straight to their "flashcard answers" ....

Palin: Everytime she claimed McCain meant something different about "fundamentals of the economy" than what the phrase actually means -- I wanted to slap her. Otherwise, 90% of her talk was what I expected her to do: platitudes, mom, apple pie, and a bit of populism (get the greedy lenders.... um, banking scandals are not exactly off the rap sheet for Republicans?). Some points for complete sentences for a change.

Biden: Missed many opportunities he was so busy going for his own "flashcard answers". Far too sedate .... Palin spent more of the debate sounding passionate even when she wasn't actually saying anything..

This is, more or less, how I felt as well. Palin was great when it came to image, but there was next to nothing substantial about her (which is ironic considering that initial concerns for Obama was that he had no substance, but has, mostly, shown that meme to be false). Biden, on the other hand, had some very good points (hopefully the "Maverick" meme will die now that Biden has easily shown how his Maverick status can be shown to be bad) but lacked the depth needed to crush McCain/Palin (I had similar complaint concerning Obama last week). And Ifill...either she was on too many pain pills, or she was broken by the recent "controversy", but she did not moderate to the best of her abilities.